Is 35 or 40 too old to have kids?

12357…10

Comments

  • Indian Summer
    Indian Summer Posts: 2,296
    catefrances wrote:
    i so agree. i had my first child at 21 and it was without doubt the single worse hospital experience of my life. i had my youngest child at 34 and it was a breeze. and such a contrast. no drugs. just walking around at home watching dawson's creek and buffy until i thought it necessary to go to hospital. before i knew it i had the perfect little girl. again. :D the older i get, the wiser i get when it comes to my body and what it is capable of. heck the next time i have a child im having it at home.


    the child you had at 34 was healthy thanks to the child you had when you were 21.
    "It's all happening"
  • Ms. Haiku
    Ms. Haiku Washington DC Posts: 7,389
    Indian Summer wrote:
    :rolleyes: it's not about how healthy you are, its about the age or your uterus!
    It's about health. A young person can have an unhealthy uterus, and older person can have a healthy uterus. It's health, not age.

    Also, I really find statistics on age and pregnancy to be suspect. They don't make sense to me . . . You're more likely to have a baby with downs syndrome the older you are . . . That doesn't make sense.

    Why? Both of my sisters who are moms had healthy pregnancies/children in their 30s. Those age-based statistics need to be evaulated. Particulary who pays for the studies.
    There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous
    The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
  • pineapplesandwaves
    pineapplesandwaves Posts: 584
    Ms. Haiku wrote:
    It's about health. A young person can have an unhealthy uterus, and older person can have a healthy uterus. It's health, not age.
    It's both.
    No time to be void or save up on life. You got to spend it all.
  • Indian Summer
    Indian Summer Posts: 2,296
    Ms. Haiku wrote:
    It's about health. A young person can have an unhealthy uterus, and older person can have a healthy uterus. It's health, not age.

    I rarely say this to people, but you are flat out wrong.
    "It's all happening"
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Indian Summer wrote:
    the child you had at 34 was healthy thanks to the child you had when you were 21.

    then i guess we best include the child i had at 23 and again the one i had at 32. :)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Brain of J.Lo
    Brain of J.Lo Posts: 3,259
    Indian Summer wrote:
    I rarely say this to people, but you are flat out wrong.

    What is she wrong about?

    A young person (like myself, for example) can have a high risk pregnancy. An older person (like my mother at the time she had me, for example) can have one free of complications.
  • Ms. Haiku
    Ms. Haiku Washington DC Posts: 7,389
    Indian Summer wrote:
    the child you had at 34 was healthy thanks to the child you had when you were 21.
    You're a scientist focused on the age of women's reproductive organs? If you are, who pays your salary? Proctor & Gamble? Merck?
    There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous
    The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
  • Ms. Haiku
    Ms. Haiku Washington DC Posts: 7,389
    Indian Summer wrote:
    I rarely say this to people, but you are flat out wrong.
    You're going to say it more and more, and be wrong more and more, as older women have healthy babies. Those age-based statistics are OLD. They were used to scare women, and were probably not paid for by the medical community. Go back to your precious statistics, and tell me who paid for those fucked-up tests.

    How can you say health isn't a factor in ability to have a child? That's funny hahahahahahahahahaha.
    There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous
    The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
  • Indian Summer
    Indian Summer Posts: 2,296
    Brain of J.Lo wrote:
    What is she wrong about?

    A young person (like myself, for example) can have a high risk pregnancy. An older person (like my mother at the time she had me, for example) can have one free of complications.


    She's statistically wrong. If you had 100 perfectly healthy 25 year old women, and 100 perfectly healthy 40 year old women....and they all became pregnant. There are gonna be MANY more birth defects and complications with the older group.
    "It's all happening"
  • Brain of J.Lo
    Brain of J.Lo Posts: 3,259
    Indian Summer wrote:
    She's statistically wrong. If you had 100 perfectly healthy 25 year old women, and 100 perfectly healthy 40 year old women....and they all became pregnant. There are gonna be MANY more birth defects and complications with the older group.

    But one can't rely on statistics alone.

    She very well may be in the "no birth defects/complications" category, like my mother did.
  • Indian Summer
    Indian Summer Posts: 2,296
    Ms. Haiku wrote:
    You're going to say it more and more as older women have healthier babies. Those age-based statistics are OLD. They were used to scare women, and were probably not paid for by the medical community. Go back to your precious statistics, and tell me who paid for those fucked-up tests.


    These are coming straight from teaching OB textbooks. Studies are recent as last year. And the stats aren't changing much over the years either, maybe a little better odds for older women because of advances in medicine.
    "It's all happening"
  • Indian Summer
    Indian Summer Posts: 2,296
    Brain of J.Lo wrote:
    But one can't rely on statistics alone.

    She very well may be in the "no birth defects/complications" category, like my mother did.

    This is very true. A 20 year old can have more problems than a 45 year old, but more often than not, its the other way around.
    "It's all happening"
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Indian Summer wrote:
    She's statistically wrong. If you had 100 perfectly healthy 25 year old women, and 100 perfectly healthy 40 year old women....and they all became pregnant. There are gonna be MANY more birth defects and complications with the older group.

    too many variables.

    what if some of those 'perfectly healthy' 25 year olds had a small pelvis which wouldnt allow safe passage for the baby? surely that is more dangerous and offers more complications for both mother and child than a 40 year old 'perfectly healthy' woman whose pelvis is large enough to accomodate a baby in transition.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Brain of J.Lo
    Brain of J.Lo Posts: 3,259
    Indian Summer wrote:
    This is very true. A 20 year old can have more problems than a 45 year old, but more often than not, its the other way around.

    Exactly, but this means that age isn't the only factor. Overall health is a hugely important factor.
  • Indian Summer
    Indian Summer Posts: 2,296
    catefrances wrote:
    too many variables.

    what if some of those 'perfectly healthy' 25 year olds had a small pelvis which wouldnt allow safe passage for the baby? surely that is more dangerous and offers more complications for both mother and child than a 40 year old 'perfectly healthy' woman whose pelvis is large enough to accomodate a baby in transition.

    your right, I'm wrong. Sorry.
    "It's all happening"
  • Indian Summer
    Indian Summer Posts: 2,296
    Brain of J.Lo wrote:
    Exactly, but this means that age isn't the only factor. Overall health is a hugely important factor.


    Sure, you are correct, I am wrong. Sorry.
    "It's all happening"
  • Brain of J.Lo
    Brain of J.Lo Posts: 3,259
    catefrances wrote:
    too many variables.

    what if some of those 'perfectly healthy' 25 year olds had a small pelvis which wouldnt allow safe passage for the baby? surely that is more dangerous and offers more complications for both mother and child than a 40 year old 'perfectly healthy' woman whose pelvis is large enough to accomodate a baby in transition.

    Exactly.

    Another example - I was a perfectly healthy 26 yr old that had pregnancy-induced hypertension and was considered borderline pre-eclamptic. I didn't have a history of hypertension, I wasn't obese...the only risk factor I had for developing pregnancy-induced hypertension was the fact that it was my first pregnancy. For whatever reason, first pregnancies (occurring at any age) have a higher instance of PIH/Pre-eclampsia.
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Indian Summer wrote:
    your right, I'm wrong. Sorry.

    no need to be sorry. we all make mistakes. ;):p:D
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Ms. Haiku
    Ms. Haiku Washington DC Posts: 7,389
    Indian Summer wrote:
    These are coming straight from teaching OB textbooks. Studies are recent as last year. And the stats aren't changing much over the years either, maybe a little better odds for older women because of advances in medicine.
    Let's see, the medical community, which LOVES technology (I Know this FIRST HAND) would love to scare patients into using more technology. Besides my own personal experience as a patient/customer, I trained as a doula, and don't even try to prove me wrong on the medical communities love of technology.

    The older women are the more manipulative, oh-I-want-to-help-you doctors will say, "Well, considering your age, we have this new technology, drug, etc to try on you. Don't worry, with this new technology, drug etc everything will be alright." Doctors LOVE c-sections, they LOVE drugs, they LOVE the money in return. With those students loans, they really LOVE the money,eh? They don't LOVE patients with an IDEA of what their bodies can do. Yep, those textbooks are right on par to teach the fucked-up medical community to dehumanize people, and worship technology. Yep, I can see where your statistics are coming from. Their angle is very clear. Who pays for the statistics? Who underwrote those textbooks?

    Older women can have healthy babies, and I don't believe an age of a woman affects an increased risk in birth defects.
    There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous
    The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
  • Indian Summer
    Indian Summer Posts: 2,296
    Ms. Haiku wrote:
    Let's see, the medical community, which LOVES technology (I Know this FIRST HAND) would love to scare patients into using more technology. Besides my own personal experience as a patient/customer, I trained as a doula, and don't even try to prove me wrong on the medical communities love of technology.

    The older women are the more manipulative, oh-I-want-to-help-you doctors will say, "Well, considering your age, we have this new technology, drug, etc to try on you. Don't worry, with this new technology, drug etc everything will be alright." Doctors LOVE c-sections, they LOVE drugs, they LOVE the money in return. They don't LOVE patients with an IDEA of what their bodies can do. Yep, those textbooks are right on par to teach the fucked-up medical community to dehumanize people, and worship technology. Yep, I can see where your statistics are coming from. Their angle is very clear. Who pays for the statistics? Who underwrote those textbooks? Doctors are a sorry-ass breed.

    Older women can have healthy babies, and I don't believe an age of a woman affects an increased risk in birth defects.


    You are 100% right, Congratulations.
    "It's all happening"

Categories